Jump to content

Talk:Moonspell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


POV

[edit]
  • "releasing their most metal release Under the Moonspell" - What is this supposed to mean? 80.145.102.187 05:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I assume "most metal" refers to the sound of the album, ie. being "more metal-soundish" than the other albums. Unfortunately, I haven't heard all of their albums so I can't judge; I just wanted to wikify the page a bit. Toreau 06:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This sounds a bit too much like a marketing page (talking about unforgettable performances etc) - needs some tidying up Gil-Galad

Gothic Doom vs Black Doom vs Gothic Metal etc

[edit]

I just wanted to say that I agree it is much better to simply state in the article that there is a debate rather than pointlessly change it from one to the other. After all, Moonspell is pretty hard to categorize - the albums are quite different from one another. Kailoran

Do something along the lines of Nightwish's lead paragraph, if you want. --Sn0wflake 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought id already done that from my own inititive and fixed this issue? Leyasu 00:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did, and I agree it's better. Kailoran 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

genre

[edit]

Ehm, but Moonspell is not a doom band... according to Metal Archives and AMG, gothic is their principal style, for gothic/doom I think about ToT, earlier TG etc.

I agree with this. There is nothing remotely Doom metal about their style, as their music is not incredibly slow or depressive (see doom-metal.com). I would say a hybrid of gothic metal and death metal would best describe their style. --Fred138 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position on this is that the Gothic-Doom tag should stay until me and neutral editors who make good faith edits, can go over the Gothic-Doom section of the Gothic Metal article and better explain the Goth Metal/Atmospheric Doom thing. That way, the link goes directly to the right part to a degree - thus no major misinformation is caused by having it say Gothic Metal, which they most certainly do not play.

  • I too find Moonspell very hard to categorize, but this quarell must come to an end. If you go to www.moonspell.com you can read the "Nocturnal Mourning Tour" ad which states "gothic metal kings"! It sounds pretty official to me. Nightshade.pt 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of this constant edit war. I changed the genre to "debated". Here you have some sources (mostly stating that they are gothic metal + black metal)
  1. http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/gr/moonspell.htm?terms=moonspell
  2. http://www.mp3.com/moonspell/artists/141657/summary.html
  3. http://www.last.fm/music/Moonspell
  4. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=61

I think the best choice for a genre is Gothic metal (now). Black metal (old). Let's reach an agreement on this one... --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do something similar to Metal - Archives thing. Folk / black metal (early) , Gothic/black metal (recent) Vater-96 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also have some strong Gothic Rock elements to a lot of their songs ala Fields of the Nephilim.JanderVK (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but people who say Wolfheart is Black Metal are... weird. I'm no purist, but there are only intermittant Blast Beats, if any, the vocals are in clear voice and the texture is pretty clearly Doom. If it isn't Doom, then Candlemass also isn't Doom... Calling it Folk Metal is almost as weird as calling it Black. Death Metal could be argued, but it would be very untypical Death while it is typical Epic Doom. I only know Wolfheart, I have no idea what they did after that. Just my two cents, obviously. 141.70.45.8 (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metal reviews

[edit]

Being a metal band, I dunno why are there only AMG reviews for all the Moonspell albums (in their separated pages, I mean). Is AMG the only "professional review" we can link to? Why not metalstorm.ee , metal-observer.com , metalreviews.com , etc... I mean, metal records should be reviewed by metal reviewers, not mainstream ones, right?! Prolly they aren't considered professional reviews, but only a peer will understand what metal is all about. Nightshade.pt 11:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess we can add those reviews to the articles. I'll do it later.--Serte 12:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fizeste bem Serte:P I just didn't want to do it all by myself and without asking anyone. TY:) Nightshade.pt 23:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also personally sick of seeing All Music as a source. They are horrible with underground music and completely uninformed. They should stick with reviewing Britney Spears albums.JanderVK (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable?

[edit]

Choose one:

And I'm sure there's much more... What are your concerns exactly?

I think you should have posted in the talk page instead of putting the tag right away.--Serte * Talk * Contribs 12:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether the article establishes that notability and, more importantly, that it does so through reliable secondary sources. Awards, top record sales, and major tours will show up in major publications. I do not know what the names you refer to above mean, but I can recognize reliable secondary sources; the issues are interlinked. —Centrx→talk • 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic metal

[edit]

There's clear traits of symphonic metal in the song "Upon the blood of men" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.131.24.50 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

well, but that doesnt make them "symphonic metal", whatever that is. if it did then the arab intro from under the moonspell would make them arab metal,too. Nightshade.pt 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Niclas Etelävuori

[edit]

The fact that niclas played session bass in the recording of one album doesn't make him part of the band, does it? Nightshade.pt 14:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it actually, does. Etelävuori even said in interview (if i remember it as right) that, he's still a member of band. Noisis

Discography

[edit]

The box at the bottom of the page must be reviewed. IMHO it should state the same as the "discography" section of the main page, which is far more acurrate. Nightshade.pt 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fansite

[edit]

Why not link to fansite (moonspell.cz) ? It's important too. Dominikmatus (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because our External links policy, under Links to be avoided, lists:
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
Mushroom (Talk) 13:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

This page is abit outdated, moonspell have signed with napalm records and are already working on the new album, both napalm records' official site and moonspell's official facebook confirm this.193.137.232.10 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Mushroom (Talk) 15:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Moonspell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moonspell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moonspell&oldid=1209156644"